K

Vanderzyden:

So I'll accept your definition of omnipotent to mean the most powerful. This still says very little about the power of God. For instance, just being the more powerful does not guarantee victory (eg. David and Goliath, 1980 U.S. Olympic Hockey team, etc).

So if Satan has the ability to destroy what God creates, and can pollute God's beloved creations to the point where He can't stand to have them in His presence, isn't Satan clearly the winner whether he is truly more powerful or not.

Vanderzyden

K,

It isn't only marginally greater power, but absolute power. And, remember, the definition I am advancing is:


Omnipotence = unique creative power


What is unacceptable about this definition?

If you recall the passages that refer to him, Satan has the power to corrupt, not destroy. Furthermore, he is permitted to use his limited power for a time so that free creatures may choose which they prefer: good or evil. In the end, only those creatures who decide to be with God will be with him. Those who don't want him will also be satisfied.


Vanderzyden

K

Vanderzyden:

But I thought you weren't defending the "absolute power" definition of omnipotence - simply relative power.

There is nothing unacceptable with it except that it doesn't differentiates God from any other creature in existence. Everything is the unique creator of something.

Or, if you somehow mean that anything created is created by God, it implies that God is the unique creator of evil, sin, hatred, pain, suffering, deceit, violence, agnosticism, and atheism.

If Satan can corrupt the vast majority of God's beloved creations to the point where He can't stand to have them in his presence, isn't Satan the winner of the battle for souls?

Vanderzyden

Absolute power is relative. It is total power over the next most powerful being and all the others. Only one being has genuine absolute power. (Again, this does not necessarily require the possession of all imaginable capabilities.)

We have been over this at length: no creature has power over its own existence, nor has genuine creative power. Parents contribute to the cause of their children, but they do not create them. Surely you remember our discussions on this matter.

We have also discussed free will. Evil is chosen. God is not responsible for the free choices his creatures make.

Again, a person decides to do evil. Satan has evil influence, God does not. Satan has no lasting victory over people who choose God.


Vanderzyden

[ October 22, 2002: Message edited by: Vanderzyden ]</p>

Thomas Metcalf

Originally posted by Vanderzyden:

"The 'logically possible' definition leads immediately to problems. If your equate 'logically possible' with 'actually possible', then you must consider the other traits of the being in question."

I still haven't seen the "logically possible" definition lead to any insoluble problems. As for considering the other traits of the being in question, well, I can do anything it's possible for me to do. McEar can do anything it's logically possible for her to do. I still haven't seen a definition from you that we can use to tell us, for any action, whether God can perform it.

Either that, or the "power" in "all-powerful" simply means something like strength, not abilities. I would say "more abilities" entails "more potency", and you would not, apparently.

And with God, all things are possible. This suggests to me that God has the ability to perform almost any action, or that all logically possible states of affairs can be brought about by God.

K

Vanderzyden:

God is not responsible for the free choices his creatures create.

I see absolutely no difference between the meaning of these two sentences. This would imply that the creatures have "creative power" thus eliminating the uniqueness of God's creative power.

Vanderzyden

Yes, that is the central issue: strength, force, potency. You wish to include mere ability, and I argue that it is unnecessary. That is because relatively weak abilities do not characterize the power of any being. And, absolute power must be defined in relation to the powers (not abilities) of other beings. We do not need to know all the possible actions that a being might perform in order to determine its power in relation to other beings. We only need to understand the strongest power(s) of that being and then compare them to other beings. If one power stands in a relation that is immeasurably greater than the power of the next most powerful being, then we have discovered The Absolute Power. I am identifying that as Creative Power.

Yes, that comes from Matthew 19, within a particular context. Its usage there is not to be equated with your "logically possible" definition. After I explained this in detail, and briefly examined other biblical passages, your only response was:

I think this is because you would like to find biblical support for your definition of weak omnipotence, and, from that, show that God could not possibly exist. But I have shown that these definitions cannot possibly apply to any being, for the imagination easily exceeds what is actually possible.

It would seem, at this point, that you do not have a strong case in maintaining the validity or applicability of the strongor weak definitions. In response, I have provided a definition that is adequate for omnipotence and comports with our intuitions and the biblical accounts. There is nothing more potent than creative power.


Vanderzyden

Vanderzyden

K,


You are equivocating on the term "make". Surely it can't be difficult to realize that my meaning was "making decisions". Your sentence doesn't "make" sense. Again, creatures do not create; they are themselves creat-ed.

Vanderzyden
<a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=47&t=001228" target="_blank">We have seen no evidence YET, Vanderzyden. I will remind you of this every day, until you answer.</a>

[ October 22, 2002: Message edited by: Jobar ]</p>

K

Vanderzyden:

Actually, I was trying to show that if God didn't create sin and evil, then we did (or Satan did).

Is it your contention that:

1. Sin and evil don't exist?

2. Sin and evil have always existed?

3. Sin and evil were created by God?

4. Sin and evil were created by someone or something other than God?

5. Sin and evil can come into existance without the need for a creator?

I think I've covered all the bases. Let me know if I've missed something.

Vanderzyden

K,

Sin and evil exist as a result of free-choice rebellion against the Creator. God creates free agents. These agents decide to choose what is contrary to the good. While God has created them, he did not force them to choose. The creature cannot justifiably blame God for the choice the creature has made.

You have responded previously that God didn't need to create free agents. That is true, but he wanted to create beings that would choose to love him. Genuine love is not possible without choice. Some creatures decide that they cannot love the Creator, and so either reject or deny him.


Vanderzyden